Not after @xPizzaSamuraixD defintion. It’s definetely not the “golden age” of celts.
It’s also a very weird accumulation of very different celt cultures, already devided for centuries. And britons are in the game, using welsh longbowmen…
Basically every civ has high historical inaccuracy. Like Deutsch"ritter" TK without a horse, units like mangudai or kiptchak named after populations… Endless list.
I think we shouldn’t exaggerate historical accuracy here. Especially made up one, like forbidding horses only because they were used 20 - 30 years “too late” for a randomly chosen date when the game shall end. That’s totally weird regarding what inaccuracies like the berbers genitour are in the game already.
Maybe this could be represented by lacking the Scout line, so no cavalry in the early ages (Dark and Feudal), but then they could have stables with some sort of Xolotl or Steppe Lancer equivalent in Castle/Imperial Age. The starting scout unit would need to be infantry (like the Eagle) and there would be no mounted trash unit (gold must be spent on foreign horses).
I like to have it the other way around, cause I think it’s more important to have the trash unit triangle intact. The knight line is easier to replace with a well-designed infantry unit (as we already have the “eagle” class and the counter to it implemented).
I think it could be justificable to enable the light cav line from castle age.
Also knights look a bit strange as they are heavy cav. I never heared about natives using heavy cavalry… But maybe i’m just a moron and missed some pages…
I agree light cav only would make more sense than knights, just harder logistically. I could see a unique light or medium cavalry working though, possibly armed with a spear and created at castles or stables. It’s also more unique, since there is no civ with access to stables but no scouts (Indians have scouts, but no knights).
If missisipians or whatever north american native civs get a farming bonus light cav could be a option in the midgame.
Also light cav has some nice usages like against monks or siege.
If you think about it light cav and knights actually don’t differ that much except for their sheer power.
I think you misunderstood what I was trying to say.
To make the lc line we need a stable and multiple stables to mass them quickly.But we already have the eagle coming out of the barracks which do fill a similar role.so would people really invest in building stables to make the lc line?
It would make an interesting experiment to see which units will people make if both eagle line and lc are both available.
xD
Yeah my the Idea was that these civs get a different version of the eagle (maybe called falcon). Current eagle replaces three lines: light cav, camel and knight. So the different version of the eagle then would only replace camel and knight and don’t have bonus damage against monks (or conversion resistance - but be a bit stronger against cavalry, maybe less pierce armor but more hp or attack).
I’m not defining a civ or anything lol. I’m saying civs should be designed (bonuses and units) around their strongest stage of power/years/golden age. Whatever you want to call it. If said strongest stage placed them in a different era or leaves out certain elements, then so be it.
I thought my example about incas and why I think they don’t get horses and gunpowder was pretty clear to explain my point.
Problem of the possibility and the amount of records. Everybody knows why the number of new civs may be small for New World, so it is necessary to make a civ cover as large range as possible when we assuming it will be there.
Sources for campaigns, leader names for AI leader and so on. I would even worry that the pre-16th century historical material of entire North America would not be enough content for making 1 civ. And these are the problems that usually do not need to be faced when making an Old World civ with sufficient solid materials. A new Old World civ can bring more new content to the AoE2 than a new New World civ, so making this new North American civ represent more tribal peoples will help to increase its content and make it more important and more likely to be introduced, although its possibility will be still minimal even if we do so.
Not much different than Teutonic Paladins, Spanish Skirmishers, or Persian Halberdiers. None of these are going to be using that building for much else.
TBh I dont agree with the ammount of civs we have from Europe as people here probably know, but when theres little to no written sources people will just rather get spmrthimg elde
Yeah theres other odd campaigns out there but when theres a lot we dont know its just hard for people to agree to put a civ into the game. And I will have to admit that I find the material for Native Americans in AoE2 a bit lacking compared to very obscure old world civs like the Mon or Mossi.
I would love to have Waris, but beetwen being one of if not the most unknown empire of of South America, the lack of written sources just makes them hard to add.
Also I would be fine with extending the timeline until the fall of Ming and the end of the 80 years wars, so fitting Natives may be easier for some people if that happens, and would also allow for cool campaigns like Ana Nzinga for Kongo.
I believe that an interesting way to give access to horses to the Native American peoples, be they Aztecs, Mayans, Incas or any other that may be added in the future, would be to give the ability that when one of these civilizations destroyed a stable, a new one would automatically appear in its place. (or two or three) indigenous mounted units. these units could be unique to each civilization or regional (one for the Aztecs and Mayans, another for the Incas, and “an additional second civilization from South America”, as well as one for North Americans if they are added as well). this technique could be unlocked by technology (a technology unique to the American people - horse stealing). This mechanic could also be extended to the siege workshop, to unlock cannons and thus appear in the destroyed place, a cannon pushed by an indigenous person. Or you could unlock gunpowder units (including cannons and hand cannons here) after destroying the university of a civilization that has these units. about a possible addition, I would like to add North American peoples to the game, even if they had a different mechanic from other civilizations. I myself would add the Haudenosaunee (Iroquois) and the Mississippians if I could. and in south america i would add the mapuche. I even suggested concepts for them. but at least one South American civilization should be added to match the Incas and give them an Andean architectural set, differentiating from the Mayans and Aztecs.
I like the idea ! Or just make an automaic conversion of the opponent stable with 1 HP. With the fire on it and the fact it’s another architecture could be fun. It would really look like a stolen stable.
Ou conversao de um estabulo e unidades indigenas montadas (a qual eu prefiro para dar acesso a cavalaria de nativos americanos) ou quando destruir o estabulo do inimigo no local das ruinas sairem duas unidades montadas nativas americanas. Na primeira opçao. A partir da destruiçao do primeiro estabulo os aldeoes nativos ja começam a ter acesso a estabulos (podem construir).
Outra civilizaçao norteamericana que merecia ser adicionada no jogo sao os mississippianos. Muitos criticam que eles sumiram sem terem contato com as civilizaçoes do velho mundo. Mas muitas outras tambem nao tiveram contato entre si e mesmo assim estao no jogo, como os hunos.